13 ms·

Kudos for the WGA for the achievement. I partially agree with the statement that unions work. From what I see Unions are great and the current model works in s

by braza 3y ago

Kudos for the WGA for the achievement. I partially agree with the statement that unions work. From what I see Unions are great and the current model works in situations where there are 2 monopolies, a monopoly of a work place and monopoly of workforce. In this case the WGA is the monopoly of workforce and the Hollywood is the monopoly of workplace. Along the history I saw that this dynamic worked and got advancements for the workers (especially during the industrialisation phase of several countries). However, when this dynamic is broken what happen is that the “losing side” in a negotiation will start to see alternatives to reduce the dependency of this monopoly. One clear example is the automotive industry that invested in high amount or automation, offshoring, and in a streamlined supply chain to reduce that exposure. I do not have any number but I would bet that Tesla today can have a high operational margin in comparison with Ford or GM. For IT I think several companies, specially in this down market, are starting to do the same thing doing offshoring or nearshoring of SWE, hiring folks abroad to avoid the risk of unionization due to the fact there’s no monopoly of SWE as a workforce.

andrei_says_ 3y ago
Are you implying that it is unions that cause corporations to seek offshoring, automation etc.? From where I stand it’s a constant race to extract more from workers and unions and possibly legislation are some of the very few forces impeding it.
- Spivak 3y ago
  > Are you implying that it is unions that cause corporations to seek offshoring, automation etc.? Well that's at least the spooky scary threat that companies use to get people to not join union so my bet is that it's total bullshit and if they could already offshore their workers and factories they would have done so already. Milk those higher wages and benefits while they're still here because they won't change the calculus at all when compared to workers who will work for single digit dollars a day.
  - billy99k 3y ago
    That isn't the point. When the union is involved, they keep demanding hire wages and benefits and it gets to the point where companies are better-off offshoring. Just look at the automotive industry. They have not only been offshoring, but the unions have strangled them to the point where it nearly destroyed the industry. I will only buy non-US cars as a result of this (mostly because of poor qualit).
    - specialist 3y ago
      Accelerating inequity and record corporate profits are just a coincidence?
    - Spivak 3y ago
      That makes no since because foreign companies are onshoring manufacturing. There's a good chance your foreign car was made here. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Honda_Motor_Company https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Honda_Motor_Company https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Group_of_America https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Group_of_America https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyundai_Motor_America https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyundai_Motor_America https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Motor_North_America https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Motor_North_America The fact that The Ford Dodge GM Chrysler Jeep Dr Pepper Snapple Group can't make a quality car is on them. In real dollars American workers have never cost less. Those fat-cat union workers making… $45k/yr. Don't they understand how their greed affects our profits?
      - wilg 3y ago
        None of those companies auto workers are unionized in the US.
        Spivak 3y ago
        But they're still in the US and paying near identical wages to UAW plants so it's not unions "ever demanding higher wages" that makes the difference. But maybe not forever since the UAW strike those unionized workers might gasp make the same amount they did pre-inflation in real dollars. The greedy bastards not taking a pay cut while the cost of the cars go up and those companies make record profits. Won't you think of the poor owners who are demanding higher returns, I think we can all sacrifice for them.
- braza 3y ago
  > Are you implying that it is unions that cause corporations to seek offshoring, automation etc.? Not for this _single_ reason. The decision for offshoring/nearshoring is a multifaceted one. Companies that have the risk to be locked in a workforce monopoly and does not have the capability to offshore/nearshore work positions, will fight with nail and tooth attempts for uniontization
- specialist 3y ago
  Yup. Capital pushes to commodify skills and labor. We as "knowledge workers" know this in our bones. Now that we've digitized and automated blue collar work, we're tackling white collar work. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouroboros https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouroboros
  - rexpop 3y ago
    But we haven't "digitized and automated blue collar work." Not by the a long shot. We've still got vast billions toiling in our service.
    - specialist 3y ago
      What's the skill level required for those billions of jobs?
      - rexpop 3y ago
        Skill level? It's the same opportunity cost as any career.
  - doubleg72 3y ago
    Tell that to all the factory workers still moving parts around plants in small towns all across the US. Tell that to the healthcare workers at hospitals, assisted living facilities, and medical practices. May even tell that to construction workers, machinists, carpenters, HVAC guys, building controls, and even network engineers. You live in a fantasy world.
- zeroonetwothree 3y ago
  Inasmuch as unions increase the cost of labor, employers will have a stronger incentive to replace it with capital. It’s one reason we haven’t seen much advancement (until recently!) in automated food preparation (vis-a-vis industrial factories)—the labor has been very cheap.
  - autoexec 3y ago
    Any human worker will increase the cost of labor compared to automation. Even at slave wages, automation wins every single time. Employers are, and long have been, 100% incentivized to automate the instant it becomes technologically feasible. Research and advancement in automated food preparation has never stopped. They were working on the problem in the 1970s with automatic vending machines, Fast food in particular has been salivating at thought of throwing out human workers for ages. (see for example: https://www.deseret.com/2003/8/11/19740875/mcdonald-s-flips-for-inventions https://www.deseret.com/2003/8/11/19740875/mcdonald-s-flips-... and https://www.wfmynews2.com/article/news/local/mcdonalds-testing-self-serve-kiosks-in-raleigh-denver/83-404008779 https://www.wfmynews2.com/article/news/local/mcdonalds-testi... and https://www.cnet.com/culture/mcdonalds-hires-7000-touch-screen-cashiers/ https://www.cnet.com/culture/mcdonalds-hires-7000-touch-scre...) The very second that the tech is ready and reliable enough, it's a done deal. No worker will ever be as cheap as a robot slave.
VancouverMan 3y ago
The impact of unionization on the customers/consumers should be considered, too. My experiences dealing with unionized workforces in Canada as a customer/consumer have generally not been good at all. Such workers often exhibit tremendous inefficiency, a lack of care, and disinterest. This results in low-quality service/work, and a bad experience for the customers/consumers involved. This is particularly noticeable when dealing with government employees who are unionized, such as public school teachers, some public hospital staff, the police, public transit system staff, and bureaucrats. Unionization in such cases creates an environment where there's no incentive to perform well, as there's pretty much no downside to the unionized worker for providing terrible service. While private sector unionization can result in a similarly-bad customer/consumer experience, at least there's often some degree of competition involved, which can give customers/consumers an alternative when service is remarkably awful. The bad service isn't as unavoidable as it is in the case of the public sector. The content out of Hollywood matches this pattern, too. I've found it to be among the least-entertaining, least-interesting, and lowest-quality content around. I've had much better results with content from small, non-unionized, independent creators.
- specialist 3y ago
  In what ways would non-union government employees be better?
  - zeroonetwothree 3y ago
    Presumably the idea is they would be motivated to do a good job or else be fired. Whereas now they are immune from firing unless doing something egregious. I don’t really agree with that though as the real reason is the government has no competition. If McDonalds does a bad job at service you will go to Burger King. But if the DMV does a bad job well tough cookies what are you going to move to Sweden?
    - simfree 3y ago
      Even with unions King County already does 3 year "temporary" contract positions for all new hires in some departments, and the City of Seattle is driving a hard line of only a 2% COLA increase in contract negotiations. Outside of the SPD Guild, unions don't have much leverage to retain underperforming employees. Document the failure to perform a handful of times and that employee will be gone, with at most a grievance filed where you get to reiterate how they repeatedly failed to deliver at work.
bko 3y ago
I disagree that unions work. It's mainly due to the fact that it treats everyone more or less the same based on some formula. For instance, they make decisions based on an observable set of factors like how long someone has been there and what education and training they have. But anyone that's worked in the workforce knows this is very limited. People aren't the same. Sometimes someone has been in an org forever but is utterly incompetent. Or someone may have all the certifications in the world but be completely useless. So its a dehumanizing sausage factory. Everyone knows two people may have the same title but one is much more productive at their job. The rigidness also extends to other factors. For instance, working at a bank we were not allowed to move our monitor to another desk. That was a union job. You had to put in a work order have someone show up eventually and move the monitor for you and get paid some fee. It introduces rigidity and inefficiency and there are constant turf wars. Person A can unplug the monitor but person B has to move it, etc. Or they may have to mandate things like "moving is dangerous so you need a supervisor watching as the person move the monitor. Finally even if they do succeed at paying above market salaries, that introduces a new question: who gets the job? Paying above a market salary will necessarily result in a lot more workers than available positions. So you have gatekeeping. That leads to cronyism as above market jobs are dolled out to friends and family. A clear example of how destructive unions can be, take a look at police unions that regularly protect bad police. You see that across the board. I've known teachers in the teachers union that obviously phone it in every chance they get (i.e. showing educational videos during class time). This wouldn't fly in a normal work environment, but due to the over-formalization of hiring, you can't just let someone go for being incompetent or just not very good at their job. You have to jump through hoops
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- phone8675309 3y ago
  > It's mainly due to the fact that it treats everyone more or less the same based on some formula. The beauty of a free market system is that if you feel that way, that the union bring mediocrity, you're not forced to deal with them. Start your own company that does not deal with the unions and bring in talent however you see fit. If unions really make things worse then congratulations, you've just created a more agile company that will certainly dominate in the marketplace. > Finally even if they do succeed at paying above market salaries, that introduces a new question: who gets the job? Paying above a market salary will necessarily result in a lot more workers than available positions. So you have gatekeeping. That leads to cronyism as above market jobs are dolled out to friends and family. This is not inherent to unions - this happens every day in non-union gigs. Not sure why you think non-union jobs are immune to cronyism and gatekeeping. > A clear example of how destructive unions can be, take a look at police unions that regularly protect bad police. Do you honestly think that the situation would be any different if police were non-union? This is a serious question - I really want to know if you think that the non-union police department would shoot fewer people than an all-union force.
callmeal 3y ago
>I would bet that Tesla today can have a high operational margin in comparison with Ford or GM. Of course they can, and we know where that margin comes from: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/18/tesla-workers-factory-conditions-elon-musk https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/18/tesla-wor... Ambulances have been called more than 100 times since 2014 for workers experiencing fainting spells, dizziness, seizures, abnormal breathing and chest pains, according to incident reports obtained by the Guardian. Hundreds more were called for injuries and other medical issues. ... “I’ve seen people pass out, hit the floor like a pancake and smash their face open,” said Jonathan Galescu, a production technician at Tesla. “They just send us to work around him while he’s still lying on the floor.”
- sershe 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - Boogie_Man 3y ago
    >historically known to be... racist As many (most?) American institutions historically were >virulently anti-immigrant To prevent wage reduction as a result of an influx of cheap labor >outright violent against non-union workers When "scabbing", or not cooperating with their fellow workers to secure better terms There are reasonable criticisms of Unions historically and the concept of Unions as a whole, but I'm not certain your quoted comment quite hits the nail on the head.
    - sershe 3y ago
      Well, what do you think the reasons are that these workers took non-union jobs with Tesla, vs union jobs with Ford/GM/etc.? > To prevent wage reduction as a result of an influx of cheap labor It's not just against cheap labor, it's against any labor, including better labor - e.g. very recently, https://9to5mac.com/2023/08/07/us-tsmc-plant-petition/ https://9to5mac.com/2023/08/07/us-tsmc-plant-petition/ Also, for me as an immigrant it's very interesting that you didn't defend racism on the ground of "prevent wage reduction as a result of an influx of cheap labor"- which is exactly what they were trying to do; but you did defend anti-immigration sentiment on that basis. Anti-immigration sentiment is still pretty socially acceptable in the US, so it's still ok to use this defense, apparently. Exactly because unions in a vacuum are pure evil - and they will behave maximally evilly within the confines that social mores allow. If racism was also still socially acceptable, unions would use that too regardless of other institutions.
dehrmann 3y ago
> the “losing side” in a negotiation will start to see alternatives to reduce the dependency of this monopoly Really, it's that you can't hold back the invisible hand forever. If the deal was actually too good for workers, it leaves room for a foreign competitor to move in. It's fine that the use of AI will be limited in TV and movies, but once it's good enough to actually write shows, a new AI-driven studio will do that, and Hollywood doesn't control distribution well enough to stop them.

by braza 3y ago

andrei_says_ 3y ago

Are you implying that it is unions that cause corporations to seek offshoring, automation etc.? From where I stand it’s a constant race to extract more from workers and unions and possibly legislation are some of the very few forces impeding it.

Spivak 3y ago
> Are you implying that it is unions that cause corporations to seek offshoring, automation etc.? Well that's at least the spooky scary threat that companies use to get people to not join union so my bet is that it's total bullshit and if they could already offshore their workers and factories they would have done so already. Milk those higher wages and benefits while they're still here because they won't change the calculus at all when compared to workers who will work for single digit dollars a day.
- billy99k 3y ago
  That isn't the point. When the union is involved, they keep demanding hire wages and benefits and it gets to the point where companies are better-off offshoring. Just look at the automotive industry. They have not only been offshoring, but the unions have strangled them to the point where it nearly destroyed the industry. I will only buy non-US cars as a result of this (mostly because of poor qualit).
  - specialist 3y ago
    Accelerating inequity and record corporate profits are just a coincidence?
  - Spivak 3y ago
    That makes no since because foreign companies are onshoring manufacturing. There's a good chance your foreign car was made here. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Honda_Motor_Company https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Honda_Motor_Company https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Group_of_America https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Group_of_America https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyundai_Motor_America https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyundai_Motor_America https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Motor_North_America https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Motor_North_America The fact that The Ford Dodge GM Chrysler Jeep Dr Pepper Snapple Group can't make a quality car is on them. In real dollars American workers have never cost less. Those fat-cat union workers making… $45k/yr. Don't they understand how their greed affects our profits?
    - wilg 3y ago
      None of those companies auto workers are unionized in the US.
      - Spivak 3y ago
        But they're still in the US and paying near identical wages to UAW plants so it's not unions "ever demanding higher wages" that makes the difference. But maybe not forever since the UAW strike those unionized workers might gasp make the same amount they did pre-inflation in real dollars. The greedy bastards not taking a pay cut while the cost of the cars go up and those companies make record profits. Won't you think of the poor owners who are demanding higher returns, I think we can all sacrifice for them.
braza 3y ago
> Are you implying that it is unions that cause corporations to seek offshoring, automation etc.? Not for this _single_ reason. The decision for offshoring/nearshoring is a multifaceted one. Companies that have the risk to be locked in a workforce monopoly and does not have the capability to offshore/nearshore work positions, will fight with nail and tooth attempts for uniontization
specialist 3y ago
Yup. Capital pushes to commodify skills and labor. We as "knowledge workers" know this in our bones. Now that we've digitized and automated blue collar work, we're tackling white collar work. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouroboros https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouroboros
- rexpop 3y ago
  But we haven't "digitized and automated blue collar work." Not by the a long shot. We've still got vast billions toiling in our service.
  - specialist 3y ago
    What's the skill level required for those billions of jobs?
    - rexpop 3y ago
      Skill level? It's the same opportunity cost as any career.
- doubleg72 3y ago
  Tell that to all the factory workers still moving parts around plants in small towns all across the US. Tell that to the healthcare workers at hospitals, assisted living facilities, and medical practices. May even tell that to construction workers, machinists, carpenters, HVAC guys, building controls, and even network engineers. You live in a fantasy world.
zeroonetwothree 3y ago
Inasmuch as unions increase the cost of labor, employers will have a stronger incentive to replace it with capital. It’s one reason we haven’t seen much advancement (until recently!) in automated food preparation (vis-a-vis industrial factories)—the labor has been very cheap.
- autoexec 3y ago
  Any human worker will increase the cost of labor compared to automation. Even at slave wages, automation wins every single time. Employers are, and long have been, 100% incentivized to automate the instant it becomes technologically feasible. Research and advancement in automated food preparation has never stopped. They were working on the problem in the 1970s with automatic vending machines, Fast food in particular has been salivating at thought of throwing out human workers for ages. (see for example: https://www.deseret.com/2003/8/11/19740875/mcdonald-s-flips-for-inventions https://www.deseret.com/2003/8/11/19740875/mcdonald-s-flips-... and https://www.wfmynews2.com/article/news/local/mcdonalds-testing-self-serve-kiosks-in-raleigh-denver/83-404008779 https://www.wfmynews2.com/article/news/local/mcdonalds-testi... and https://www.cnet.com/culture/mcdonalds-hires-7000-touch-screen-cashiers/ https://www.cnet.com/culture/mcdonalds-hires-7000-touch-scre...) The very second that the tech is ready and reliable enough, it's a done deal. No worker will ever be as cheap as a robot slave.

VancouverMan 3y ago

The impact of unionization on the customers/consumers should be considered, too. My experiences dealing with unionized workforces in Canada as a customer/consumer have generally not been good at all. Such workers often exhibit tremendous inefficiency, a lack of care, and disinterest. This results in low-quality service/work, and a bad experience for the customers/consumers involved. This is particularly noticeable when dealing with government employees who are unionized, such as public school teachers, some public hospital staff, the police, public transit system staff, and bureaucrats. Unionization in such cases creates an environment where there's no incentive to perform well, as there's pretty much no downside to the unionized worker for providing terrible service. While private sector unionization can result in a similarly-bad customer/consumer experience, at least there's often some degree of competition involved, which can give customers/consumers an alternative when service is remarkably awful. The bad service isn't as unavoidable as it is in the case of the public sector. The content out of Hollywood matches this pattern, too. I've found it to be among the least-entertaining, least-interesting, and lowest-quality content around. I've had much better results with content from small, non-unionized, independent creators.

specialist 3y ago
In what ways would non-union government employees be better?
- zeroonetwothree 3y ago
  Presumably the idea is they would be motivated to do a good job or else be fired. Whereas now they are immune from firing unless doing something egregious. I don’t really agree with that though as the real reason is the government has no competition. If McDonalds does a bad job at service you will go to Burger King. But if the DMV does a bad job well tough cookies what are you going to move to Sweden?
  - simfree 3y ago
    Even with unions King County already does 3 year "temporary" contract positions for all new hires in some departments, and the City of Seattle is driving a hard line of only a 2% COLA increase in contract negotiations. Outside of the SPD Guild, unions don't have much leverage to retain underperforming employees. Document the failure to perform a handful of times and that employee will be gone, with at most a grievance filed where you get to reiterate how they repeatedly failed to deliver at work.

bko 3y ago

I disagree that unions work. It's mainly due to the fact that it treats everyone more or less the same based on some formula. For instance, they make decisions based on an observable set of factors like how long someone has been there and what education and training they have. But anyone that's worked in the workforce knows this is very limited. People aren't the same. Sometimes someone has been in an org forever but is utterly incompetent. Or someone may have all the certifications in the world but be completely useless. So its a dehumanizing sausage factory. Everyone knows two people may have the same title but one is much more productive at their job. The rigidness also extends to other factors. For instance, working at a bank we were not allowed to move our monitor to another desk. That was a union job. You had to put in a work order have someone show up eventually and move the monitor for you and get paid some fee. It introduces rigidity and inefficiency and there are constant turf wars. Person A can unplug the monitor but person B has to move it, etc. Or they may have to mandate things like "moving is dangerous so you need a supervisor watching as the person move the monitor. Finally even if they do succeed at paying above market salaries, that introduces a new question: who gets the job? Paying above a market salary will necessarily result in a lot more workers than available positions. So you have gatekeeping. That leads to cronyism as above market jobs are dolled out to friends and family. A clear example of how destructive unions can be, take a look at police unions that regularly protect bad police. You see that across the board. I've known teachers in the teachers union that obviously phone it in every chance they get (i.e. showing educational videos during class time). This wouldn't fly in a normal work environment, but due to the over-formalization of hiring, you can't just let someone go for being incompetent or just not very good at their job. You have to jump through hoops

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
phone8675309 3y ago
> It's mainly due to the fact that it treats everyone more or less the same based on some formula. The beauty of a free market system is that if you feel that way, that the union bring mediocrity, you're not forced to deal with them. Start your own company that does not deal with the unions and bring in talent however you see fit. If unions really make things worse then congratulations, you've just created a more agile company that will certainly dominate in the marketplace. > Finally even if they do succeed at paying above market salaries, that introduces a new question: who gets the job? Paying above a market salary will necessarily result in a lot more workers than available positions. So you have gatekeeping. That leads to cronyism as above market jobs are dolled out to friends and family. This is not inherent to unions - this happens every day in non-union gigs. Not sure why you think non-union jobs are immune to cronyism and gatekeeping. > A clear example of how destructive unions can be, take a look at police unions that regularly protect bad police. Do you honestly think that the situation would be any different if police were non-union? This is a serious question - I really want to know if you think that the non-union police department would shoot fewer people than an all-union force.

callmeal 3y ago

>I would bet that Tesla today can have a high operational margin in comparison with Ford or GM. Of course they can, and we know where that margin comes from: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/18/tesla-workers-factory-conditions-elon-musk https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/18/tesla-wor... Ambulances have been called more than 100 times since 2014 for workers experiencing fainting spells, dizziness, seizures, abnormal breathing and chest pains, according to incident reports obtained by the Guardian. Hundreds more were called for injuries and other medical issues. ... “I’ve seen people pass out, hit the floor like a pancake and smash their face open,” said Jonathan Galescu, a production technician at Tesla. “They just send us to work around him while he’s still lying on the floor.”

sershe 3y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- Boogie_Man 3y ago
  >historically known to be... racist As many (most?) American institutions historically were >virulently anti-immigrant To prevent wage reduction as a result of an influx of cheap labor >outright violent against non-union workers When "scabbing", or not cooperating with their fellow workers to secure better terms There are reasonable criticisms of Unions historically and the concept of Unions as a whole, but I'm not certain your quoted comment quite hits the nail on the head.
  - sershe 3y ago
    Well, what do you think the reasons are that these workers took non-union jobs with Tesla, vs union jobs with Ford/GM/etc.? > To prevent wage reduction as a result of an influx of cheap labor It's not just against cheap labor, it's against any labor, including better labor - e.g. very recently, https://9to5mac.com/2023/08/07/us-tsmc-plant-petition/ https://9to5mac.com/2023/08/07/us-tsmc-plant-petition/ Also, for me as an immigrant it's very interesting that you didn't defend racism on the ground of "prevent wage reduction as a result of an influx of cheap labor"- which is exactly what they were trying to do; but you did defend anti-immigration sentiment on that basis. Anti-immigration sentiment is still pretty socially acceptable in the US, so it's still ok to use this defense, apparently. Exactly because unions in a vacuum are pure evil - and they will behave maximally evilly within the confines that social mores allow. If racism was also still socially acceptable, unions would use that too regardless of other institutions.

dehrmann 3y ago

> the “losing side” in a negotiation will start to see alternatives to reduce the dependency of this monopoly Really, it's that you can't hold back the invisible hand forever. If the deal was actually too good for workers, it leaves room for a foreign competitor to move in. It's fine that the use of AI will be limited in TV and movies, but once it's good enough to actually write shows, a new AI-driven studio will do that, and Hollywood doesn't control distribution well enough to stop them.